Shuey v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether the United States government was liable for damages caused by a federal officer acting in an official capacity. The case arose when the executor of the estate of a deceased man, John Shuey, sued the United States for damages caused by a federal officer who had seized and sold the deceased man's property without a court order. The executor argued that the federal officer had acted beyond his authority and that the United States was liable for the damages caused by the officer's actions. The Supreme Court held that the United States was not liable for the damages caused by the federal officer. The Court reasoned that the officer had acted in an official capacity and that the United States was not liable for the officer's actions. The Court further held that the officer's actions were not a violation of the deceased man's constitutional rights and that the United States was not liable for the damages caused by the officer's actions. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States was not liable for the damages caused by the federal officer's actions in Shuey v. United States. The Court reasoned that the officer had acted in an official capacity and that the United States was not liable for the officer's actions. The Court further held that the officer's actions were not a violation of the deceased man's constitutional rights and that the United States was not liable for the damages caused by the officer's actions.

In Shuey v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal tax on inheritance should be applied retroactively. The majority of the court held that it could, but Justice Field dissented from this opinion. He argued that such an application would violate due process and constitute a taking of property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, he noted that Congress had not explicitly stated its intention for the law to apply retroactively when it passed it and thus there was no clear indication as to their intent in doing so. As such, Justice Field concluded that applying this law retroactively would be unconstitutional and therefore should not stand.